About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
and others passed it. >> brian: it is what is on the ground and senators have foreign policy experience. how does that factor when they go head-to-head. >> wait, wait, wait. four years of foreign policy experience, i mean, right before that, with due respect to the president of the united states, he just had a couple in the united states senate and state legislator. i don't think that there is a material difference in experience on that front because the governor is chief executive of a state but also commander in chief. you have direct experience with how military works and bain capital covers the globe. you understand how international markets work. i think you can certainly pick out deficiency on the governor's side from the stand point of foreign policy. but understanding both markets and again, the political of having one branch under control and accountablity of that. >> steve: you know what governors do because you did in in south carolina. thank you for joining us. >> brian: coming up, keep your kid no, sir school or lose your welfare benefits. we'll debate it. >> steve: ladies, talk
of ideological divergence between romney and obama. those are the two critical issues here. on foreign policy generally the president has had an advantage. somewhat unusual for a democrat. seen more capable handling foreign policy. his job approval have been better than ratings on domestic policy. but with netanyahu raising the question -- with the differences being made so visible by netanyahu's own visibility, the question for jewish support in a couple places that could matter. it's not inconceivable given the arguments from the israeli prime minister. >> they're not going to meet face-to-face. they're both obviously here in the united states. but there will be a phone call tomorrow. what's the political fallout from this decision that someone made that the president should not get together with netanyahu during these final weeks of this election? >> well, look, relationships are fraught between president obama and netanyahu as they were between clinton and netanyahu. netanyahu and his view of the world and what it takes to make israel secure is closer to a neocon republican view of what i
handling foreign policy. his job approvav tter than ratings on. buthetyahu raising the questi -- wh th differences beinma so visible by nyahu'ow visibility, the question fe pport in a couple places that could matter. it'sot inconceile given the arguments fr the iaeli prime minister. face-to-face.go meet they're both obviously here in the united states. but there will be a phone call tomorrow. what's the political fallout from this decision that someone made that the president should not get together with netanyahu during these final weeks of this election? >> well, look, relationships are fraught between president obama and netanyahu as they were between clinton and netanyahu. netanyahu and his view of the world and what it takes to make israel secure is closer to a neocon republican view of what it takes to achieve security for israel. i don't think the president wants there to be the sense of a complete and utter breach politically at least in the u.s. going into the election. nor in fact does he want that in practice. the underlying relationship is very solid. the immediate relation
in the last week of october is going to be focused on foreign policy. we may see it at the end of the election. >> gregg: great to see you. thanks very much. >> heather: with the clock ticking down most polls show president obama with a slight lead over governor mitt romney. as history shows the late september leads doesn't mean a win in november. mike emanuel explains. >> polls go up and down. >> history shows that late september leads can evaporate by election day. in 1968 hubert humphrey was down 15 points. nixon won it was less than 1 percent. in 1976, jimmy carter had a 33-point lead over gerald ford. three debates, ford had cut the lead to 5 points and led in the final polls and narrowly lost. jamie carter had a consistent advantage over ronald reagan but the final presidential debate changed everything leading to a reagan landslide. now he is building a lead in key battleground states, a consultant who worked for jimmy carter, finding the right sample to survey can be tricky. >> we know from exit polls that republicans tend to respond to these polls less than oftentimes particularly to
, with foreign policy so critical, you know, are social issues going to be the deciders as they have in past elections, or do you think voters are basically going to wipe the slate clean and say no, no, no, we've got to focus on getting the economy, the economy, the economy, social issues can go by the wayside. maria? >> well, that's such an interesting question, deb, because this is something that i've actually written about. this is where i think republicans have really gotten it wrong. yes, the economy is the number one issue, but guess what, mitt romney has now lost his edge on the economy. and president obama is now outpolling him on who is trusted more with the economy. so with that, what will happen when voters go into the voting booth, they will look at the economy and how both candidates will deal with economic issues, but they will always -- and this is even including when romney had an edge on the economy, they will always look at other issues because american voters are not monolithic. so if you're a latino and you go into the voting booth, you're going look at how these candidat
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)